Thursday, June 23, 2011

Does the Real Presence remain after a Eucharistic Miracle?

The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

Although there is a popular tradition which
connects the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi with the Eucharistic
Miracle of Bolsena-Orvieto, there seems to be little historical basis for such
an assertion. The Catholic Encyclopedia
credits the Feast not to the miracle of Orvieto, but to the visions of St.
Juliana of Mont Cornillon, who lived in Belgium through the early part of the
13th century.

However, though it may be true that there is
little historical connection between this Eucharistic Miracle and the
promulgation of the Feast of Corpus Christi, the popular devotion of the
faithful (especially of those in Italy) and the great festivities celebrated
each year in these two Italian towns, calls to mind this Eucharistic Miracle as
we celebrate today this holy Solemnity.

As we consider the reality of Eucharistic
Miracles, we may be led to a further question: If we believe that the Real
Presence remains in the Eucharist so long as the accidental properties remain
(i.e. that Christ is present so long as the Eucharistic species remains in the
appearance of bread or wine), what are we to make of Eucharistic Miracles in
which the species ceases to appear as bread or wine and instead is physically and
accidentally changed into flesh and blood? Does Christ remain in the Eucharist
after a Eucharistic Miracle? And, if he does remain, are we to conclude that
the miraculously visible flesh and blood is physically the very same flesh and
blood which was conceived and born of the Blessed Virgin Mary? In other words,
is a Eucharistic Miracle something like a relic of Jesus?

In such a complicated question, we do well to
turn to the Angelic Doctor for guidance. We recall that St. Thomas Aquinas is “the
greatest theologian and impassioned poet of Christ in the Eucharist” – summus theologus simulque Christi
eucharistici fervidus cantor (Bl. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia 62).

Whether
Christ's Body Is Truly There When Flesh or a Child Appears

Miraculously
in This Sacrament? (Summa Theologica III,
Q. 76, Art. 8)

Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body
is not truly there when

flesh or a child appears
miraculously in this sacrament. Because His

body ceases to be under
this sacrament when the sacramental species

cease to be present, as
stated above (A. 6). But when flesh or a

child appears, the
sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore

Christ's body is not
truly there.

Obj. 2: Further, wherever Christ's
body is, it is there either under

its own species, or
under those of the sacrament. But when such

apparitions occur, it is
evident that Christ is not present under His

own species, because the
entire Christ is contained in this

sacrament, and He
remains entire under the form in which He ascended

to heaven: yet what
appears miraculously in this sacrament is

sometimes seen as a
small particle of flesh, or at times as a small

child. Now it is evident
that He is not there under the sacramental

species, which is that
of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that

Christ's body is not
there in any way.

Obj. 3: Further, Christ's body begins
to be in this sacrament by

consecration and
conversion, as was said above (Q. 75, AA. 2, 3, 4).

But the flesh and blood
which appear by miracle are not consecrated,

nor are they converted
into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore

the body or the blood of
Christ is not under those species.

On the contrary, When such apparition
takes place, the same

reverence is shown to it
as was shown at first, which would not be

done if Christ were not
truly there, to Whom we show reverence of

“latria”. Therefore,
when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the

sacrament.

I answer that, Such apparition comes
about in two ways, when

occasionally in this
sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen.

Sometimes it happens on
the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so

affected as if they
outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while

no change takes place in
the sacrament. And this seems to happen when

to one person it is seen
under the species of flesh or of a child,

while to others it is
seen as before under the species of bread; or

when to the same
individual it appears for an hour under the

appearance of flesh or a
child, and afterwards under the appearance

of bread. Nor is there
any deception there, as occurs in the feats of

magicians, because such
species is divinely formed in the eye in

order to represent some
truth, namely, for the purpose of showing

that Christ's body is
truly under this sacrament; just as Christ

without deception
appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus.

For Augustine says (De
Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is

referred to some
significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the

truth." And since
in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it

is manifest that, when
such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease

to be under this
sacrament.

But it sometimes happens
that such apparition comes about not merely

by a change wrought in
the beholders, but by an appearance which

really exists outwardly.
And this indeed is seen to happen when it is

beheld by everyone under
such an appearance, and it remains so not

for an hour, but for a
considerable time; and, in this case some

think that it is the
proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it

matter that sometimes
Christ's entire body is not seen there, but

part of His flesh, or
else that it is not seen in youthful guise, but

in the semblance of a
child, because it lies within the power of a

glorified body for it to
be seen by a non-glorified eye either

entirely or in part, and
under its own semblance or in strange guise,

as will be said later
(Suppl., Q. 85, AA. 2, 3).

But this seems unlikely.
First of all, because Christ's body under

its proper species can
be seen only in one place, wherein it is

definitively contained.
Hence since it is seen in its proper species,

and is adored in heaven,
it is not seen under its proper species in

this sacrament.
Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at

will, disappears when it
wills after the apparition; thus it is

related (Luke 24:31)
that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the

disciples. But that
which appears under the likeness of flesh in this

sacrament, continues for
a long time; indeed, one reads of its being

sometimes enclosed, and,
by order of many bishops, preserved in a

pyx, which it would be
wicked to think of Christ under His proper

semblance.

Consequently, it remains
to be said, that, while the dimensions

remain the same as
before, there is a miraculous change wrought in

the other accidents,
such as shape, color, and the rest, so that

flesh, or blood, or a
child, is seen. And, as was said already, this

is not deception,
because it is done "to represent the truth,"

namely, to show by this
miraculous apparition that Christ's body and

blood are truly in this
sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the

dimensions remain, which
are the foundation of the other accidents,

as we shall see later on
(Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly

remains in this
sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: When such apparition takes
place, the sacramental

species sometimes
continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only

as to that which is
principal, as was said above.

Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, during such
apparitions Christ's

proper semblance is not
seen, but a species miraculously formed

either in the eyes of
the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions

themselves, as was said
above.

Reply Obj. 3: The dimensions of the
consecrated bread and wine

continue, while a
miraculous change is wrought in the other

accidents, as stated
above.

In
summary, sicet non

Thus, the Angelic Doctor answers “yes” and “no”
– that is, he answers in the positive to our first question, and in the
negative to our second.

Does the Real Presence remain after a
Eucharistic Miracle? Yes, on two accounts. First, and foremost, because the
dimensive quantity of the accidents persists, the “substance” of the accidents
remains. Moreover, the change in appearance of the accidental properties (the
accidents of bread changing to those of flesh and the accidents of wine
changing to those of blood) is a manifestation of the true reality of Christ’s
sacramental presence. Therefore, in the case of a Eucharistic Miracle, the Real
Presence of Christ remains in the Eucharist.

After a Eucharistic Miracle, is Christ present
in the Eucharist in the same visible manner as he was present on earth, such
that he who looks upon the Eucharistic Miracle is able to see physically the
flesh and blood of Jesus? In other words, is a Eucharistic Miracle something
like a relic of Jesus? No, again on two accounts. First, because such would
mean that the Eucharist was no longer a sacrament. This alone distinguishes
Christ’s presence in the Eucharist from his presence in heaven, that he is
present in his proper species in heaven while he is present in his sacramental
species in the Eucharist. Moreover, if the Eucharistic Miracle were physically and
accidentally the flesh and blood of Jesus, then the Eucharistic Miracle would
cease to contain the whole Christ but would only be a “piece” of our Savior –
and, thus, we see how repugnant it is to think of the Eucharist (even after a
Eucharistic Miracle) as a relic of Jesus; for a relic is only a part of a
saint, but Christ is present whole and entire in each portion of the Eucharist.

Thank you, Father, I'm in your debt! A powerful demonstration of my sophomoric question! Thank you very much. (And after this I'll try to look up stuff in St. Thomas, who'da thought he analyzed the question of Eucharistic miracles!?! Happy Solemnity of the Birth of St. John the Baptist!

Father, I know it will take a while for you to reply to this...I was wondering if you could tell us more about St. Thomas' references to the appearance of 'a child' in the Eucharistic Miracle. Does he mean a whole figure of small child appears where the Host was? An image on the Host? Is there a famous example of this? Thanks in advance.

The Russian Orthodox Liturgikon says about this very issue that should such happen, the priest is to take fresh matter as needed (bread, wine, or both), and say the appropriate words of the Anaphora over them.

Those that have changed their appearance to something other than bread and wine are to be put aside--NOT in the Tabernacle--and the Bishop notified.

Should they resume their proper appearance of bread or wine, they are to be consumed with the ablutions of the next liturgy.

While it may have been helpful for those alive at the time, I'm actually convinced that emphasis of Lanciano today is the reason for much of the disbelief in the Eucharist. I think Catholics (and Protestants) got the image in their head (I certainly had it as a child, and it seems to be what uneducated Catholics and Protestants THINK we believe when I probe them) that the Eucharistic Presence is basically, yeah, a little disk of severed flesh of Christ, or a cup of liquid blood...and are rightly repulsed by such a grotesque idea. Yet, without the very complex understanding of Aquinas here, it is what miracles like Lanciano seem to imply. Most people think nowadays they are supposed to represent what the Eucharist "really is" if the accidental "veil" as it were, were to fall away (bad theology, but in the popular imagination...)

As such, I would NOT emphasize Lanciano anymore or show that picture of it much, because it leads to everyone thinking the Catholic Church teaches we eat a little piece of severed flesh and drink of a cup of liquid blood. And...frankly...blech! Even if the Apostles had consecrated on Good Friday, Aquinas said, it would have been His WHOLE dead body and the TOTALITY of His shed blood (ie, not merely an amount equal in volume to the wine).

Chatto,Unfortunately, I too am not aware of where the reference to the Child comes from.I do know that, in the Eucharistic Miracle chapel at Orvieto, there are frescos of a priest elevating a Host which has changed into a small Child. But I don't know where it comes from ... certainly, it is not a reference to the miracle of Orvieto-Balsena.

@A Sinner, You make good points. I have tried to communicate the same in several posts on the sacramental nature of the Real Presence ... it is not a piece of Christ which we receive, but the whole Jesus sacramentally and really present.

I have a couple of questions though. If this flesh that the Eucharist turns into sometimes, is not the flesh of Christ - whose flesh can it be? I find the arguments made for it not being the flesh of Christ somewhat unconvincing.1. You say, since Christ is present sacramentally in the Eucharist and it's the entire person present sacramentally, this cannot be Christ as it's only a part of his flesh. Well, once the species of bread and wine - the accidents, the signs of the eucharist dissapear, I would tend to think the basis of your arguement that this is not a "sacramental presence" dissapears as well - it's not! the rules of sacramental presence no longer apply!

2. We know that Christ has a glorified body - are we so certain of the properties of the glorified body that because a piece of his flesh is made manifest over here, He is 'un-whole' in some way up in heaven?

3. Even if it were to be so (that the glorified body is not too different from our body in respect to duplication of flesh), we are well aware today of many parts of our body being able to regenerate themselves. for eg., if I hurt myself and lost some skin on my arm, that skin will grow again. Because a scrap of my skin is left on the ground, does not mean I am without some part of my body. Muscles have the ability to grow again. And the heart is a muscle (whcih is what many say the flesh is from). Today we even have stem cells which can take on any part of the body and grow into it. My point is simply that, even in our bodies, we can observe that there is a great capacity to regenerate, so why do you apply this as an argument to the glorified body?

Leo,If the flesh is physically a piece of Christ's flesh, then (as you say) we would loose the "sacramental presence" ... which would mean that the "Eucharistic Miracle" in Lanciano is not really the Eucharist at all -- since it would no longer be a sacrament.This would be a very strange thing! (i.e. it would be strange to call something which is not the Eucharist, a Eucharistic Miracle)

Moreover, it is a bit offensive to think that the Species in Lanciano is a "hunk" or a "piece" of Christ's flesh. It would be as though we cut off his finger and put it in a monstrance.

Finally, Christ's soul cannot be (physically) in two places at once -- it cannot be both in heaven and in a piece of flesh on earth ... this would mean that the Species in Lanciano is dead non-glorified flesh. This is why it is so important to maintain that the Eucharist is a sacrament and that Christ IS NOT locally present in the Eucharist as in a place -- this is the explicit teaching of the Church, as represented in Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei.

The only way to maintain that the Lancian Host is not a dead piece of flesh is to claim that it is still the Eucharist. But, if it is still the Eucharist, it cannot be merely a "piece" of Christ.Therefore, it is clear that this cannot be physically Christ's flesh ...

As to whose flesh it is ... the answer is fairly simple ... just like all the other accidental properties of the Eucharist, the accident of flesh does not inhere in a subject.[as we do not say that Christ "tastes" dry in the Precious Blood, so too we do not say that the visible flesh in Lanciano is Christ's flesh]

I know that this is quite complicated -- and I am bringing in some philosophical concepts -- but I hope that the matter is at least a little bit more clear!Peace to you! +